Black/White differences on trial

[FlFishOn]

I love this topic. The intricate ballet of language needed to state the obvious without offending anyone is mind numbing.

Here's the article: Race on trial (http://www.courttv.com/people/2006/0425/dillardssalon_ctv.html)

Excerpt: "Thomas is one of eight black women suing the department store for racial discrimination after she allegedly was told that Dillard's beauty salons charge black customers more than whites because of the "kinky" nature of "ethnic" hair."

I submit that a child of three can articulate the difference between typical black hair and typical white hair. Unfortunately, only a child of three (and myself) dares to voice such things. Everyone else is risking career and standing when touching such a PC hot potato. Sad indeed.

Imagine a Black man diagnosed with sickle cell amenia. The doc explaines the future treatment and costs. The Black man demands to pay exactly the same as a white man would. Doc explains whites are not likely to need such treatment. Black man sues. Not a perfect analogy but not too far away either.

[vhawk01]

Good to know that there is one lone voice (You) who is willing to risk his career to fight against this global conspiracy. Your destitution will not be in vain! Vive la revolution!

[Metric]

I'm afraid you just don't understand. The argument is as follows:

"Hair is hair regardless of what color you are, and the prices should be the same for everybody," Thomas told Courttv.com. "This is a practice that's still being done in the 21st century, and it should be stopped."

Only the civil rights visionaries can fully understand -- we must gracefully step aside.

[guesswest]

I do agree with you on this point, but I'm starting to wonder why you're so obsessed with this issue also?

And in this case clearly the solution is that it's fair for them to charge more for people with 'kinky' hair because it requires more work, and if the majority of those individuals are black that's also fair. But it's unfair to actually fix price based on ethnicity alone unless it's demonstrated that it's applicable in 100% of situations in both directions (which obviously it isn't).

Edit: In response to Fish not metric, used quick reply.

[MidGe]

Well it seems to be discrimination against kinky hair. Unless blacks with straight or wavy hair are charged more too, or unless white with kinky hair are not charged more. The problem is, as has been said so numerous times on these forums, how do we define black or white in any meaningful way. That has not proven possible to-date.

[FlFishOn]

"I do agree with you on this point, but I'm starting to wonder why you're so obsessed with this issue also?"

I'm a rasict. I believe there are measurable differences between blacks and whites. I also believe that, as a society, our refusal to consider the possibility is furthering bigotry and many other problems.

Here's an example to stoke the fire. College admission afirmative action quotas are a significant disservice to both blacks and whites. Black AA admissions to top tier schools do worse than the White students who's places in the class they would otherwise occupy. The Blacks suffer a higher failure rate in order to meet the quota and the Whites are pushed into less prestegious schools.

Don't bother to write a lenghty specific rebuttal, I'm not interested in debating this. It's worse than abortion. There's an entire generation that's been brainwashed into believing that our strength lies in our diversity. It's utter BS.

[hmkpoker]

[ QUOTE ]
Imagine a Black man diagnosed with sickle cell amenia. The doc explaines the future treatment and costs. The Black man demands to pay exactly the same as a white man would. Doc explains whites are not likely to need such treatment. Black man sues. Not a perfect analogy but not too far away either.

[/ QUOTE ]

A black man should get the treatment at the same price. The insurance premium covering such a thing, however, should be different.

[guesswest]

You're assuming my view in saying you don't want to hear a rebuttal. I don't support affirmative action based on race either - I used to, but did a lot of reading on it for an ethics paper I wrote a while back which changed my mind. It's a more compelling idea based on socio-economic background.

I think you're making an assumption that a great many people don't share your view - that there is a level of ridiculousness in how the media and public bodies dance around race issues. Gender too. I think the vast majority of people recognize how silly public dialogue often is in this regard.

I was really just getting at the fact that there are a million other things that are shaping our society to get worked up about too.

[theweatherman]

[ QUOTE ]
"I do agree with you on this point, but I'm starting to wonder why you're so obsessed with this issue also?"

I'm a rasict. I believe there are measurable differences between blacks and whites. I also believe that, as a society, our refusal to consider the possibility is furthering bigotry and many other problems.

Here's an example to stoke the fire. College admission afirmative action quotas are a significant disservice to both blacks and whites. Black AA admissions to top tier schools do worse than the White students who's places in the class they would otherwise occupy. The Blacks suffer a higher failure rate in order to meet the quota and the Whites are pushed into less prestegious schools.

Don't bother to write a lenghty specific rebuttal, I'm not interested in debating this. It's worse than abortion. There's an entire generation that's been brainwashed into believing that our strength lies in our diversity. It's utter BS.

[/ QUOTE ]

Could it be that Blacks do worse in college b/c their secondary education is [censored]?

[ QUOTE ]
I believe there are measurable differences between blacks and whites.

[/ QUOTE ]

How does this measure up with this:
[ QUOTE ]
There's an entire generation that's been brainwashed into believing that our strength lies in our diversity. It's utter BS.

[/ QUOTE ]

Blacks and whites are irrepairibly different, yet strenght doesnt come from diversity. If blacks and whites are so different how can their be strenght in unity?

[FlFishOn]

"You're assuming my view in saying you don't want to hear a rebuttal. "

No, it was general, not specific to you. I don't have time or inclination to debate the issue.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
"You're assuming my view in saying you don't want to hear a rebuttal. "

No, it was general, not specific to you. I don't have time or inclination to debate the issue.

[/ QUOTE ]

Isnt this sort of a textbook definition of trolling?

[MadTiger]

[ QUOTE ]
"I do agree with you on this point, but I'm starting to wonder why you're so obsessed with this issue also?"

I'm a rasict. I believe there are measurable differences between blacks and whites. I also believe that, as a society, our refusal to consider the possibility is furthering bigotry and many other problems.

Here's an example to stoke the fire. College admission afirmative action quotas are a significant disservice to both blacks and whites. Black AA admissions to top tier schools do worse than the White students who's places in the class they would otherwise occupy. The Blacks suffer a higher failure rate in order to meet the quota and the Whites are pushed into less prestegious schools.

Don't bother to write a lenghty specific rebuttal, I'm not interested in debating this. It's worse than abortion. There's an entire generation that's been brainwashed into believing that our strength lies in our diversity. It's utter BS.

[/ QUOTE ]

Here is my reply (and I want no rebuttal, either):

I am a black person who went to a prestigious, expensive, private liberal arts undergraduate school, 99% scholarship, of course. So prestigious David Bowie's son went there. Was there pressure different on me than would have been on the Kip or Buffy whose "place I took?" [censored] yeah, it was.

The following statement is to counter your comment about the stats about the underperformance of blacks in these affirmative action spots.

When in these spots, were they treated the SAME way as the white person would have been. History shows they probably weren't. Were they under the same pressures, or more? Simply put, more.

It is no [censored] wonder that some of the kids didn't perform as well as Biff Worthington would have, considering the environment, etc.

I am 100 times more smart/intelligent/talented than you. And you spelled racist, wrong, you dumb racist.

On a lighter note:
Poker is a very enjoyable game.

[guesswest]

Both of you - can I suggest that if you don't want rebuttal you don't bother posting in the first place.

This is a discussion forum, the whole point of it is discussion and debate. Which for sure doesn't mean you're compelled to discuss all your views, but if you don't want to do so, I'd suggest keeping them to yourselves.

[FlFishOn]

"And you spelled racist, wrong, you dumb racist."

Two points. I can not be insulted by using a term I self-apply. Any moron should be have able to figure that out. File for future reference.

I don't type too well, worse still when playing a few tables.

[MadTiger]

I am not trying insult you by calling you a racist, I am trying to insult you by calling you DUMB! Hehe.

And your incorrect use of the word moron is also appalling.

Thanks for ignoring the meat of my post. I will ignore the meat of yours. Sorry, there was no meat. It's vegetarian day, I guess.

[FlFishOn]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
"You're assuming my view in saying you don't want to hear a rebuttal. "

No, it was general, not specific to you. I don't have time or inclination to debate the issue.

[/ QUOTE ]

Isnt this sort of a textbook definition of trolling?

[/ QUOTE ]

I thought a while on this. The reason I can't stand to undertake a debate here is the anticipated quality of the opposing view point. AA, multiculturalism, diversity, these have been taught as substitute Gospel to the current generation. They will argue their false religion with missionary zeal. My appeals to logic and reason will find no place to take root. Their brainwashing is complete. Their reaction is rote, unthinking or occasionally emotional, making debate quite tiresome.

But don't get me wrong, a good troll is not out of the question. That just wasn't my intention here.

[vhawk01]

So your also a snob?

[MidGe]

[ QUOTE ]
The reason I can't stand to undertake a debate here is the anticipated quality of the opposing view point. AA, multiculturalism, diversity, these have been taught as substitute Gospel to the current generation.

[/ QUOTE ]

Also has been thaught that there is no scientific definition of race. Race was purely a concept rooted in bigotry. Hey, we advance! /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[bunny]

[ QUOTE ]
Also has been thaught that there is no scientific definition of race. Race was purely a concept rooted in bigotry. Hey, we advance! /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[/ QUOTE ]
Hi midge

I posted this a while back but didnt get much response - perhaps you have an opinion on it?

[ QUOTE ]
I'm interested in how the people who claim there is no biological justification for race came to that conclusion. It seems to me "obvious" that Nancy Reagan is a good example of a white woman and Mohammed Ali is a good example of a black man. It doesnt matter to me that there are some people hard to classify by race (or even by gender) - it is still a meaningful and objective classification.

In a similar way - in Australia April is a warmer month than July - there are exceptionally warm july days and cold april days, it doesnt mean that the distinction is meaningless, though.

I have seen race defined as (something like) "A biologically distinct subdivision of a species possessing certain gene frequencies" in evolutionary biology textbooks. Under this definition it is incorrect to consider a race as a bunch of creatures all approximating some sort of "platonic ideal". It is also incorrect to state that all members of a particular racial group have certain characteristics. The definition is more probabilistic.

Would this sort of definition be useful in generating an objective measure?

[/ QUOTE ]
For what it's worth I'm not a big fan of racial classification, but I wonder if the above points to a way of objectively classifying different races?

[MidGe]

Hiya bunny,

You sure can use probalistic definitions, but that negates the concept of "race" as it is used. Think about it.

[bunny]

Do you mean something like the following?

That people use race in a "You are in this category or that category" kind of way. With the assumption that everyone fits into one category and only one category if you define them all carefully enough. However, this only becomes true if you define six billion categories for six billion individuals, making it a superfluous differentiation?

[guesswest]

Midge - you can, and I know we have, debated whether there's a biological justification for race. But I'm not going to get into that here, I'll accept for the sake of this argument there is none.

It's patently absurd to take that as meaning 'there's no such thing as race'. Nobody, including hard scientists, are suggesting that, and if that's where you're ending up I think you've misconstrued the debate entirely, and the point geneticists and the like are trying to make.

Race clearly exists from the point of view of sociology, and all reference to it is not 'bigotry'. The concept of race is real and important in all kinds of cultural ways. And the vast majority of classifications social science makes are probablistic.

[Doctaprofit]

oh i get it, they score -1 deviation on iq tests because there is too much pressure on them. Lol

[bunny]

Did you mean to reply to me with this post? I dont see the relevance to what I said. /images/graemlins/confused.gif

[MadTiger]

No, bunny, he is referring to something I stated.

But it's irrelevant, really, seeing that specifically I am more educated, verifiably by those same tests more intelligent, than he is. I am willing to challenge him and FLFishOn for their posting rights for a year. No monkey/sock puppet accounts, etc. "Loser leaves town" for a year. Easy +EV challenge, wouldn't you agree? -1 standard deviation and all.

He must be a FLFishOn disciple I guess. Too weak to post shyte like this on forums with his Aryan Brother Hood or White Pride, etc.

Very sad, actually.

One side point, and then my contributions to this thread are done, and I will await another spew of Florida Fish Chum.

I have been a strong proponent of free speech over my life. I defended the right of the Ku Klux Klan, of all organizations, to assemble and hold their little parade, etc. in my home state years ago. They were asking to use the proper platform for their discussion. And of course, I don't agree with their views.

Yet, I do not feel that 2+2 is the proper platform for racists, admitted or in hiding, (of any color, religion). I nonetheless will abide by the wishes of the forum mod that people can post this $!^(&* as long as they follow the stipulated guidelines.

[FlFishOn]

Wow, that's some angry prose.

As a American native black man there is no prohibition on you having a 180 IQ. It's just a damn sight less likely that the random American native black man has a 180 IQ than the random American native white man. Do you see why? I'd be surprised if you do. No amount of intellect will likely overcome your bias.

The same comparison holds true for white men VS white women. There are fewer women in the right hand tail of the IQ distribution.

Believing this is, by my definition, racist. There are many thing hidden in my closet, no hood among them.

[Metric]

I could use a genius's point of view on the following: Is becoming enraged, touting one's personal qualifications, name calling, and issuing of public challenges each time the words "intelligence" and "race" are mentioned together in a thread more likely to combat racial stereotypes or to reinforce them?

[MadTiger]

I said I was done with this thread, but I was invited back in.

I am not enraged. Outraged is a better term here. Actually, I give permission for any who I have PMed to share the PMs and see if they are the product of rage.

What stereotype is being reinforced by asking FLFishOn and his disciples to put up or shut up? Oh, that blacks are great at boxing/fighting?

Since I was invited back in, I will add this: there has been serious academic studies on the validity of the measurement instruments used to try to determine "intelligence."

From "Hah-vahd": http://www.gse.harvard.edu/hepg/freedle.html

As a result many tests were found to be culturally-biased e.g. SAT and not adequate measuring tools.
----
The challenge still stands, and if you want in, we can arrange it. Still no takers, strangely enough.

MadTiger > racists, nits, and trolls oh my!

There are poker forums at the top of this page. Meet you up there, m'kay?

P.S. I just saved a bunch of money on my car insurance by switching to Geico!

[FlFishOn]

"As a result many tests were found to be culturally-biased e.g. SAT and not adequate measuring tools."

Dismissing the tests because you are unhappy with the result is so very easy. I'm not too surprised to find you on the low road. Dismissing all the tests is intellectual dishonesty or a lack of research.

[MadTiger]

[ QUOTE ]
"As a result many tests were found to be culturally-biased e.g. SAT and not adequate measuring tools."

Dismissing the tests because you are unhappy with the result is so very easy. I'm not too surprised to find you on the low road. Dismissing all the tests is intellectual dishonesty or a lack of research.

[/ QUOTE ]


You took the bait! Fish On! (Pun intended)

If the results are valid, then my challenge to you is valid, and I would pwn you IQ-wise, even though you claim membership of the "superior group." Furthermore, you would be, in effect, saying that you have more of a clue than one of the most revered researching academic institutions in the whole world. Really. It doesn't matter in the grand scheme of life with all of the more important things going on like world hunger, war, poker tournaments, etc., but remember, I PWN you.

If the results of such tests are NOT valid, then your original claims are not proven by them. And you wouldn't want that.

Take your pick.

Now I am really done. There is nothing more to say on this here.

Meet you in the next thread and next topic.

[guesswest]

In fairness, as much as I agree there is a definite bigoted undertone to a lot of what Fish says, I don't think he's suggesting any given white man is going to outperform any given black man on an IQ test.

As far as race and IQ goes, I think it actually is pretty socially important. Whether IQ discrepancies are a result of cultural and other biases within the tests themselves, or whether it's to do with some underlying phenomena, either situation says something important (just something very different). I don't conclude in either event it says anything about anyone being more 'mentally capable' in a general sense - but IQ is a pretty good predictor for various things.

Regardless, I think it's a shame that this is such a hard issue to objectively discuss and one that always results in people throwing about ad hominems - because it's pretty interesting stuff and I for one would like to understand it better.

[FlFishOn]

It's logical Swiss cheese, emphasis on the cheese. But honestly, I expected little more.

[FlFishOn]

"In fairness, as much as I agree there is a definite bigoted undertone to a lot of what Fish says,"

To have conviction and to argue this topic persuasively I guarantee you will sound like a bigot to any younger ears. I am not a bigot WRT blacks. I am becoming a bigot WRT Islam.


"I don't think he's suggesting any given white man is going to outperform any given black man on an IQ test."

Just so. But I further guarantee that all test results that measure IQ, when lumped together, will show that the average white (US native born) outscores the average black (same).

This is a most inconvenient fact for many. As a society we completely ignore this fact and make every single policy decision assuming every group is equally intelligent. It leads to some awful results and a lot of waste. Note that the US has outlawed intelligence testing as a hiring criteria with one exception, the military. Perhaps they should include Congress. Buh bye Patty Murray.


"Regardless, I think it's a shame that this is such a hard issue to objectively discuss and one that always results in people throwing about ad hominems - because it's pretty interesting stuff and I for one would like to understand it better. "

This issue is career death. No serious academic is interested in researching black/white differences, it's just too hot. Look at the reaction generated by a glancing blow from Larry Summers. That didn't take long, did it?

[vhawk01]

Explain how we as a society ignore the fact that the average white person scores higher than the average black person on an IQ test. I guess I would agree, simply for the fact that we as a society ignore IQ tests almost unanimously. But I dont think we specifically reject the data that shows what you are saying. We simply reject the conclusions that YOU, not the data, come to. For instance, you say that the average white male scores higher than the average black male on an IQ test. I can accept this. Your assertion, unbased in my opinion, is then that the average white man is more intelligent. This is NOT supported by the evidence stipulated, thought it perhaps could be supported by further evidence. This is for the simple reason that no one has, to my knowledge, demonstrated that IQ tests measure intelligence. This is without even bringing up the enormous flaw in defining "average white man" and "average black man" since these are discontinous labels that have no actual basis in reality.

[Rduke55]

[ QUOTE ]
Explain how we as a society ignore the fact that the average white person scores higher than the average black person on an IQ test. I guess I would agree, simply for the fact that we as a society ignore IQ tests almost unanimously. But I dont think we specifically reject the data that shows what you are saying. We simply reject the conclusions that YOU, not the data, come to. For instance, you say that the average white male scores higher than the average black male on an IQ test. I can accept this. Your assertion, unbased in my opinion, is then that the average white man is more intelligent. This is NOT supported by the evidence stipulated, thought it perhaps could be supported by further evidence. This is for the simple reason that no one has, to my knowledge, demonstrated that IQ tests measure intelligence. This is without even bringing up the enormous flaw in defining "average white man" and "average black man" since these are discontinous labels that have no actual basis in reality.

[/ QUOTE ]

Excellent post!

[FlFishOn]

"Your assertion, unbased in my opinion, is then that the average white man is more intelligent. This is NOT supported by the evidence stipulated, thought it perhaps could be supported by further evidence. This is for the simple reason that no one has, to my knowledge, demonstrated that IQ tests measure intelligence."

If you take this line then there's nothing to discuss. My mental picture right now is three monkeys in a row.

[vhawk01]

I am attacking the foundation of your argument, that for some reason you believe that IQ results are sufficient evidence for your hypothesis that "blacks" are less intelligent than "whites." I am saying you need to find either:

Evidence that the IQ test measures intelligence
or
Other evidence, besides IQ tests, that indicate inferior intelligence.

But I agree, there is not much to discuss on this front. The real problem is that 'intelligence' is a nebulous and practically useless term. What would it mean if "blacks" WERE less intelligent? Would they be less or more likely to succeed? Less or more likely to write a book, hunt a deer, do my taxes or build a hut?

[FlFishOn]

What does the SAT measure? How about the AFQT? What do they predict?

The point is you are free to deny that they correlate to "intellegence" and you can redefine "intelligence" to meet any current PC motive. Go for it. You are tossing out information that I know to be predictive. So does an awful lot of the rest of the world.

[Rduke55]

[ QUOTE ]
What does the SAT measure? How about the AFQT? What do they predict?

The point is you are free to deny that they correlate to "intellegence" and you can redefine "intelligence" to meet any current PC motive. Go for it. You are tossing out information that I know to be predictive. So does an awful lot of the rest of the world.

[/ QUOTE ]

What you call a "PC motive" everyone else defines as "good cognitive science".

[vhawk01]

I'm not redefining intelligence in any way, I'm not defining it at all. I'm asking you to. If you are saying there is some PRACTICAL application to the differences in IQ scores, which you implied when you used the phrase 'predictive' then I am interested to hear it. I am familiar with claims that high IQ scores correlate to financial success. However, I have heard very convincing, and frankly intuitively obvious, arguments that this correlation is simply indicative of some other root cause, that has as its effects both better IQ scores AND a higher likelihood of financial success.

But really I'm just trying to pin you down. What are you implying when you tout this IQ data? I assume it is that 'black people are stupid' but I don't want to put words in your mouth. You are a self-reported racist, but I haven't really seen you post in a supremely ignorant or bigoted manner, and I honestly am interested in hearing what you have to say.

As a side note: Enough with the persecution complex. Your arguments would hold much more weight if you didn't imply that your ideas were somehow the target of some global PC conspiracy bent on world domination. Say what you think, try to back it up if you are so inclined, and accept the ridicule and disagreement like a man. Stop hiding behind this excuse that anyone who disagrees with you is simply the agent of the PC SS.

[MadTiger]

<delurk>

Bingo! Pwned.

<lurk>

[FlFishOn]

"But really I'm just trying to pin you down. What are you implying when you tout this IQ data?"

You are free to research this yourself. J. Phillipe Rushton is where to start.

I tire of debating the newly educated. I'm assuming you are under 30, in or recently out of college, and you bought into what they taught you. Likely you will not be a victim of your education all your life. Think of me in twenty years.

[vhawk01]

Again with the snobbery?

[Rduke55]

[ QUOTE ]
"But really I'm just trying to pin you down. What are you implying when you tout this IQ data?"

You are free to research this yourself. J. Phillipe Rushdon is where to start.

I tire of debating the newly educated. I'm assuming you are under 30, in or recently out of college, and you bought into what they taught you. Likely you will not be a victim of your education all your life. Think of me in twenty years.

[/ QUOTE ]

I am over 30, out of college for 10 years, and waaay more knowledgable about this subject than you are.

Are you talking about Rushton? If so, you may want to get a better source.

[FlFishOn]

"I am over 30, out of college for 10 years, and waaay more knowledgable about this subject than you are."

Bet you've got a bigger dick too. Congrats.

[guesswest]

As far as IQ testing goes. I do agree that intelligence is a very slippery and complex subject. And that IQ scores almost certainly don't tell the whole story.

But I think it'd be a mistake to throw out the baby with the bathwater on that one too. IQ scores to clearly corellate in SOME way with what we perceive as intelligence. The guy with the 160 IQ is hugely likely to be the guy that we identify as extraordinarily bright sans any knowledge of his IQ score, and the reverse is true with the 70 IQ guy.

I don't really know how exactly that observation fits into this debate. But I'm seeing an increasing trend in academic discussion everywhere I look, in which commentators are rejecting wholesale factors that clearly have some significance just on the grounds they aren't easy to delineate. That's a mistake IMO.

[vhawk01]

Not to pile on, but "I'm older than you" has been the essence of every one of your responses to me. Making fun of him for same seems hypocritical.

[vhawk01]

I never suggested rejecting IQ data wholesale when it comes to dealing with sociological and societal problems. I just objected to the idea that it was sufficient in itself to classify 'races' as dumber or smarter. I don't know that its even sufficient to classify individuals as such, since IQ seems to have both environmental and genetic aspects (doesn't everything?) I guess the main hesitation comes in this question:

WHY do you want to know? If the idea is to give some creedence to your view that one group is inherently 'superior' (and oh man, what a can of worms THAT term is) then I think you will be sorely disappointed, and run into (both due AND undue, I'll admit) criticism.

Btw, some of this was directed at guess, some not. I'm not painting you in any sort of light.

[guesswest]

Well firstly, I don't think any race is 'superior', the idea is preposterous. And I certainly agree IQ can't be used to classify races as 'dumber' or 'smarter'.

But I think IQ and race is tremendously interesting. In precisely what way it's interesting I don't know, because I don't understand it very well. And it's because I don't understand it well that I'm interested in it. I can't help but feel that if, as a society, we could have a rational dialogue about things like this we might actually learn something.

Stereotyping, and all the things people are scared of developing from that kind of investigation are IMO actually perpetuated by that kind of 'hands-off' approach - if the concern is bigotry, there's no better place for that to blossom than in isolation.

[FlFishOn]

"WHY do you want to know? "

I'd love to find out why blacks earn less. Why they do worse in school (I now know it's NOT the $). Why they have soooo many more fatherless babies.

Because if the answer to these questions is that, as a group, they are intellectually inferior to whites, then my society has made huge errors in addressing these inequalities.

That's all. I'm an engineer. I want the machinery to run smoothly. Any fool can see it does not run well currently. I believe that we could be an order of magnitude more efficient if we found out exactly why blacks and whites are different. Past racism is not sufficient to explain all differences.

[vhawk01]

I agree that rational dialogue is a goal. But it is important to be prudent about making assumptions or extrapolations when it comes to matters like this. History is replete with examples of how a little knowledge is a horrible thing. That being said, I am always very uncomfortable with classifying certain topics as 'taboo' or the like, for exactly the reasons you have mentioned. I am a big fan of knowledge for knowledge sake. But as far as this topic is concerned, it is fairly impossible for the conclusion that FlFishOn is implying (perhaps I am reading him incorrectly, he won't oblige me and be more clear) to be the case. Its simply not the case that IQ test results can infer superiority on certain 'race' groups, which are in themselves imaginary labels.

In other words, this is NOT an analogous situation to considering demographic profiles in regards to sickle cell anemia, diabetes, high blood pressure, etc. If we can find out how different populations learn differently or approach problems, thats a noble pursuit, even if it APPEARS to be politically incorrect. Using these same pursuits as a means of subjugating certain groups or dehumanizing them is abhorrent.

[FlFishOn]

"I'm older than you"

You miss the point. Young <> foolish. Young correlates to liberal and PC really well. THis board correlates to young very well. We are blessed with a few young conservatives here willing to question academia's status quo.

[vhawk01]

I think you miss the point. You dismiss out of hand objections to what you say for, apparently, two main reasons. Anyone who disagrees with you is part of some fascist agenda, or everyone who disagrees with you is so hopelessly feeble-minded and naive as to not be worth your time. The previous poster was taking objection with the second of these two. I have previously taken objection to the first.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
"I'm older than you"

You miss the point. Young <> foolish. Young correlates to liberal and PC really well. THis board correlates to young very well. We are blessed with a few young conservatives here willing to question academia's status quo.

[/ QUOTE ]
Can I say the same about crotchety old men who refuse to listen to or believe anything that challenges their long-held beliefs? Can we settle this entire debate based simply on who has the most clever and insulting stereotypes of the other?

[guesswest]

Actually, I wasn't being very honest when you asked me a moment ago why I'm attracted to this subject. I have a specific reason why I'm interested in this subject.

Quite a while ago, when I'd just joined 2+2, someone posted a thread on here. The OP (can't remember who it was) posted something to effect that blacks were inherently dumb, and that their naturally occuring lower IQ's made them passive aggressive, violent, doomed to second class citizenship etc. Basically a seething racist, it wasn't a post couched in academic language in any way.

So I posted back some knee-jerk comment that he was a moron, that there was no evidence that any race was 'more intelligent' etc. So he linked me to some IQ studies etc, which I was totally ignorant to at the time. So then again in knee-jerk fashion I referenced cultural biases in IQ testing. And he linked me to studies taken in isolated third world locations comparing racial IQ distributions etc. Then he linked me to studies on brain mass etc.

Point is not that he was right, on balance there were huge flaws with his reasoning, which many posters pointed out more eloquently than me. But I realized that my response was not my own. As a liberal philosophy type I take pride in all my beliefs being the result of my own processes and analysis, and I was pretty disappointed with myself when I realized I was basically just parroting back things I'd been told, no differences between races, cultural bias etc - like a kid at church. And the view that I spouted back may very well be correct, but it wasn't mine. It may seem kinda lame, but it got under my skin in a huge way that I wasn't in control of my own beliefs in that way. Basically I felt like an ass. So whenever this subject comes up I'm drawn to it.

And as much as some of the implications of posters like fish make my skin crawl, I also kinda have to acknowledge on some level that there is truth in what he says about conditioned responses to this issue - there certainly was in my case. It's a tremendously powerful area and I think a great many people are responding to it on auto-pilot.

And really, I'm much more interested in what that mechanism is and how it's so powerful in our society - I don't really care who has what IQ.

[vhawk01]

I gave the OP credit, and did recognize the fact the he very likely receives much undue criticism for his views from people who simply see it as impossible that any groups can be different (again, I hesitate to use the term inferior or less or, obviously, dumber) than any other group.

My point was really that not ALL people object to him for these reasons. He seems to have decided it was impossible to disagree with him for purely intellectual and scientific reasons, and uses that to dismiss any and all arguments against him. I think that is an incredibly dangerous way to go through life.

[Metric]

Most of the posters here, I imagine, are genuinely interested in the subject you brought up with this thread (I can only think of 2 or 3 "true believers" in the standard PC line that regularly post here) -- but your dismissive posts make it look like you simply don't have an argument.

From where I'm standing, I simply notice a few things. Wealth, education, enlightenment, and development seem to follow certain groups of people wherever they may turn up in the world, under nearly any circumstance -- persicution or not (e.g. Jews -- Schwarzschild discovered the black hole solution to general relativity while on the Russian front during WWI just prior to his untimely death, Curt Herzstark invented an ingenious mechanical calculator while in a Nazi concentration camp during WW2 -- similar sories abound). Other groups of people have an extremely predictable tendancy toward poverty and crime -- virtually no government/infrastructure/society created or dominated by them would be considered "successful" or "modern", dispite having been around the longest and having historically some of the greatest access to natural resources. Look at lists of "poorest countries in the world" and they stare back at you, from multiple continents. In "melting pot" cultures worldwide, they universally occupy the bottom rung on the economic/education scale.

Come to find out, IQ testing seems to exhibit a similar trend -- certain people with certain common physical features nearly universally do well (in the statistical sense), and others not so well. From my non-specialist point of view of the subject, I simply go about my way, take note, and wonder if anyone is truly surprised or confounded by it all.

[FlFishOn]

I got it the first time.

When you've been sucked into the PC world you don't even know you've been sucked in. Do you know where you stand on that issue? Prove to me I'm dismissing you without cause.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
I got it the first time.

When you've been sucked into the PC world you don't even know you've been sucked in. Do you know where you stand on that issue? Prove to me I'm dismissing you without cause.

[/ QUOTE ]

Excuse me? Your default position is that anyone who isn't you is a moron, until they have proven to you their credentials by, I'm assuming, agreeing with you about some issue? Is that the standard? If I say I think homosexuals are annoying do I gain credibility? Are you aware of how your posts come off?

[FlFishOn]

Very nice post.

"-- but your dismissive posts make it look like you simply don't have an argument."

Yes, I'm an opinionated prick. I'm intolerant of some posters when I pick up the phrases of unthinking PC indoctrination. I know that sounds rude and crude and unenlightened but you can not understand the garbage being sold as knowledge today in academia. You need to have a multigenerational frame of reference. I have it. Most posters here do not.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
Very nice post.

"-- but your dismissive posts make it look like you simply don't have an argument."

Yes, I'm an opinionated prick. I'm intolerant of some posters when I pick up the phrases of unthinking PC indoctrination. I know that sounds rude and crude and unenlightened but you can not understand the garbage being sold as knowledge today in academia. You need to have a multigenerational frame of reference. I have it. Most posters here do not.

[/ QUOTE ]

It sounds all of those things. But more importantly, it sounds like a recipe for disaster. How do you plan on ever learning anything if you have such a restrictive filter?

[Rduke55]

[ QUOTE ]
"I am over 30, out of college for 10 years, and waaay more knowledgable about this subject than you are."

Bet you've got a bigger dick too. Congrats.

[/ QUOTE ]

Man, you have got problems.

You were criticizing the other poster saying he was under 30 and probably in or just out of college so I stated that I'm a poster that fits in a different category.

And I am more knowledgable on you on this subject because I've studied it. Using peer-reviewed journal articles rather than discredited popular texts by authors whose names I can't spell.

And even if I were in college still why would your homespun wisdom and life experience be superior to my education on subjects like genetics and neuroscience?

[Rduke55]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm intolerant of some posters when I pick up the phrases of unthinking PC indoctrination.

[/ QUOTE ]

As opposed to posters that are picking and choosing the research they believe because of their racist views.

I said before, my stances on this issue is because of the science, not because I've been brainwashed.

[Rduke55]

[ QUOTE ]
you can not understand the garbage being sold as knowledge today in academia.

[/ QUOTE ]

What do you base this statement on? Because it disagrees with what you feel is right?

[ QUOTE ]
You need to have a multigenerational frame of reference.

[/ QUOTE ]

Come on. To understand genetics, neuroscience, and cognitive science you need to be old?

[FlFishOn]

I read a lot.

[FlFishOn]

" Are you aware of how your posts come off? "

The beauty of being me is in not caring how I come off.

Now, tell me your age, education, occupation and your politics and either I'll continue to dismiss you or I'll beg your forgiveness. Be honest, poker players never lie.

[vhawk01]

18/F/CA wanna cyber?

[Taraz]

[ QUOTE ]
18/F/CA wanna cyber?

[/ QUOTE ]

LOL

Also, vhawk and Rduke, I admire your tolerance.

[KeysrSoze]

[ QUOTE ]


The beauty of being me is in not caring how I come off.



[/ QUOTE ]

It's just not a good way to get people to agree with you, since you seem to care so passionately about the subject, unless you're just doing it for a smug better-than-thou feeling. Kind of like the idiots at Burning Man who give the rest of the legalization supporters a bad name.

[Rduke55]

[ QUOTE ]


Also, vhawk and Rduke, I admire your tolerance.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well I used to share some of our bigoted friends views, before I learned to distinguish my ass from a hole in the ground - so I'm sympathetic.

[FlFishOn]

"It's just not a good way to get people to agree with you,"

There's near to zero changing of hearts and minds on this topic. Why do I do it? I'm unsure. I'm the only exposure to this point of view a lot of these kids get. I try to make a lasting impression so that twenty years from now, when they fully realize that 2/3rds of their college education was utter PC garbage, they might have a seed.

[Rduke55]

Are you sure you're not my grandpa?

How many of the people that you are arguing with do you guess will "come around" to your point of view and say "Wow, back near the turn of the century I used to think that FlFishOn was an biased, ignorant, bigoted d-bag that was completely uneducated about what he was talking about. Was I wrong or what? He's so wise and enlightened. I finally get it now."?

[theweatherman]

[ QUOTE ]
"It's just not a good way to get people to agree with you,"

There's near to zero changing of hearts and minds on this topic. Why do I do it? I'm unsure. I'm the only exposure to this point of view a lot of these kids get. I try to make a lasting impression so that twenty years from now, when they fully realize that 2/3rds of their college education was utter PC garbage, they might have a seed.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you understand this self evident point why doesnt everyone else.

I think a certain razor might be put into play here:

Either you are right and are privy to this super understanding of race relations, making almost everyone else wrong, or you are wrong. Which is the more logical choice?

[mmbt0ne]

[ QUOTE ]
We are blessed with a few young conservatives here willing to question academia's status quo.

[/ QUOTE ]

FFO, I feel like you are doing a disservice to your people by resorting to these kind of woe-is-me-the-victim politics.

[FlFishOn]

Did you search my entire body of work to find this quote in order to make your poor comparison? You need to get a life.